Texas voters stick a fork in Ann Richards and her liberal pals

San Antonio Express News | 11/7/2002 | Roddy Stinson

[The South Texan]

Roddy Stinson: Texas voters stick a fork in Ann Richards and her liberal pals

Web Posted : 11/07/2002 12:00 AM

"You can stick a fork in George Bush because he's done." — Ann Richards, speaking at a Houston rally for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Oct. 28, 1992 "Stick a fork in Ann Richards and her liberal sidekicks because they are cooked." — The Texas electorate, sending a message to the Texas Democratic Party on Nov. 5, 2002

As late as 6:45 Tuesday night, Richards, a former one-term Texas governor, was telling CNN's Larry King:

"We are going to have an unprecedented turnout in Texas. ... Tony Sanchez could win. But it's harder for him than it is, say, for Ron Kirk or John Sharp, who I think will be the lieutenant governor. And Kirk Watson, who's a smart young man, the mayor of Austin, will become the attorney general."

Actually, Watson — the supereminent darling of Democratic liberals — hasn't been mayor of Austin since the fall of 2001 when he resigned his mayoral post to run for attorney general.

But that minor Richards goof pales when compared to her bold — and remarkably incorrect — last-minute prediction of a virtual sweep of the state's major elected offices by Texas Democrats.

The proof of her predictive blunder is in the numbers.

As this is edited early Wednesday evening ...

U.S. Senator

John Cornyn, 55%; Ron Kirk 43%

Governor

Rick Perry, 58%; Tony Sanchez, 40%

Lt. Governor

David Dewhurst, 52%; John Sharp, 46%

Attorney General

Greg Abbott, 57%; Kirk Watson, 41%

The magnitude of the Democratic defeat approaches breathtaking.

In 1998, in the lieutenant governor's race, Sharp, the Texas Democratic Party's brightest star, was defeated by Perry, a popular, two-term agriculture commissioner, by only 2 percentage points.

Four years later, Sharp — the Democrats' most electable candidate and the favorite politico of Texas pundits — lost by 6 percentage points to Dewhurst, a little-known and not particularly popular land commissioner, who had one campaign theme: "John Sharp is an out-of-step, tax-and-spend LIBERAL."

True or not, the "liberal" tag stuck, and that was sufficient reason for voters to knock out the Democrats' best candidate.

But Sharp's fall was a soft landing compared to the crash of Kirk Watson, the only unabashed liberal in a top position on the Democratic ticket.

Last February, Texas Monthly pundit Paul Burka predicted that during the 2002 campaign Greg Abbott would describe Watson with "just four words: liberal Austin trial lawyer" ... and Watson would counter "by trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by asking, 'Who do you want fighting for you?'"

Texas voters provided a resounding answer to that question on Tuesday when they buried liberal Watson under a landslide of Abbott votes.

Which leads to an obvious conclusion:

Ann Richards must not have cleaned her crystal ball before palavering with Larry King Tuesday night.

Not that her way-wrong predictions will bother King or CNN's slanted-news managers.

As long as Richards is ambulatory and ready, willing and eager to put a damper on Bush Republicans, she will find a place in the lights, cameras and interview chairs of TV network big shots.

In response, Texas voters will just continue to do what they do best: watch quietly, listen politely, smile knowingly and flock to the polls to baste Miz Ann and her political pals.

To contact Roddy Stinson, call (210) 250-3155 or e-mail rstinson@express-news.net. His column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays.

[Nick Danger]

The Democrats don't know what the man on the street is thinking.

I agree that some of the more visible "opinion leader" type Democrats -- like the ones in the New York media and in Hollywood -- live in bizarre little enclaves where their chances of running into an actual Republican are near-zero, and certainly zero at any social function they would attend. I think that absolutely warps the way they think and talk, and I think it's most visible in the New York media... the Dan Rathers and the Maureen Dowds. They are clearly on some other planet where 1960's liberalism is "mainstream."

I also think that too many Washington Democrats -- and waaaaayy too many Republicans -- believe the crap they read in the Washington Post, and think that somehow represents reality.

There is some evidence for your hypothesis in the behavior of Mary Landrieu, who has apparently just fired her campaign staff and told the national party to stay the Hell out of her runoff race, which she intends to run on the basis of "Louisiana values." I don't know that she's in any better touch with those values than Terry McAuliffe, but she thinks she is, and she is clearly implying that the Washington-based DNC people are not.

[rdb3]

You are right on the money. I wonder how long it will take the media to realize that they really hold no sway.

Information is far too widely available. They have to know this.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Hila]

Poor Ann, she was born to be a loser. And her mouth runs before her brain can kick into gear. Ann Richards, the epitomy of "pride goes before a fall". May she and her team never again rise to power, ever again.

[GOPJ]

bump

[Southack]

"You are right on the money. I wonder how long it will take the media to realize that they really hold no sway. Information is far too widely available. They have to know this."

Thanks. I'd modify your statement just a little to fit my worldview, where it's not so much that the media doesn't matter (it does, somewhat), as that the bias in the media has been so prevalent for so long that Conservatives have been forced to become stronger, wiser, and more aggressive in our information gathering and propaganda-filtering techniques. Vas Mich Nicht Umbringt, Mas Micht Starker (that which does not kill us makes us stronger).

While on the other hand, the liberals have grown soft (accustomed to total fawning and protection from/by the media).

Fast forward from the 1960's to today, where Foxnews, the Washington Times/WSJ, talk radio, and the Internet have brought information exchanges into mainstream access, and the soft liberals are no longer competitive with the toughened conservatives.

And as the information monopoly continues to lose its control and influence, so too will liberals continue to decline in popularity.

In other words, the media is what is keeping the liberals in the game at all, and without it, they are toast.

[Paleo Conservative]

With the GOP now controlling the state legislature, do we get to take a second look at re-districting?

Hell Yes!

[Charles Henrickson]

Ma Richards and Poison Ivins are probably out together, throwing back a few, drowning their sorrows, going on and on about "Poor George" and "Shrub". . . .

[Tuco-bad]

The media and the Democrats do NOT represent the average American. They don't know what the average American is thinking and they don't know how the average American will vote. Republicans do NOT represent the average American. They don't know what the average American is thinking and they don't know how the average American will vote.

That's why the Reps lost 5 Senate seats and control of the Senate in 2000.

In 2002 the Dems so far have lost 2 seats.

[Tuco-bad]

The media and the Democrats do NOT represent the average American. They don't know what the average American is thinking and they don't know how the average American will vote.

The media and the Republicans do NOT represent the average American. They don't know what the average American is thinking and they don't know how the average American will vote.

That's why the Reps lost 5 Senate seats and control of the Senate in 2000.

In 2002 the Dems so far have lost 2 seats.

[mikeb704]

Takes a lot to get them wrinkles out!

Indeed.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

[HitmanLV]

Poor Ann......Pooor Annnnn....

One of my fondest memories of election night '94 was seeing Dubya kick her sorry rear end out of the governorship! That one was for popps!!!! I'll never forget her incredulous look as she conceded, and the first words of Dubya as he claimed victory....."Texans can dream....."

Who then knew how bad the 8 CLinton years would be, and who then knew that Dubya would age a decade in 12 months after we were attacked on 9-11?

[dirtboy]

The media and the Republicans do NOT represent the average American. They don't know what the average American is thinking and they don't know how the average American will vote.

Wrong. After 9/11, the Dems are clueless as to the changes in the American psyche. That has become quite apparant as they try to saddle Homeland Defense with job-protection provisions, and waffle on the Iraq resolutions, and continue to engage in the inane liberal activity of denying that the United States has the right to protect itself. Before 9/11, that trait was simply annoying. Now it is dangerous, and the voters spoke accordingly.

That's why the Reps lost 5 Senate seats and control of the Senate in 2000. In 2002 the Dems so far have lost 2 seats.

Let's put the two into perspective. In 1988, Reagan managed to hand off the office to his Vice President. In 2000, Clinton failed. The economy was still reasonably good, so the GOP should have gotten stomped. Instead, they took the White House and were only prevented from control of the Senate by the shenannigans in Missouri and Jefford's switch.

Now, fast forward to 2002. A weak economy. A historic trend for the party in the White House to suffer significant losses in off-year elections. Put the two together, and the GOP should have gotten stomped. Instead, the GOP made modest but critical gains, and at 51-48, they should be switch-proof.

You can spin this all you want by ignoring those inconvenient facts. But the truth is, the Dems screwed-up big time - by clinging to an anti-American philosophy that should have been discarded after 9/11.

[MAWG]

So Tuco, what is your opinion of Bill and Hillary Clinton?

[Richard Kimball]

There's a rumor floating around that Chet Edwards is going to change parties. He's the Rat Representative for Waco, Killeen, Georgetown, Round Rock, etc. He got challenged pretty heavily this time, and his district is getting more conservative. He doesn't really have any convictions, so he'll go where he's got the best chance to get elected. Has anyone else heard these rumors?

[Tuco-bad]

Instead, they took the White House and were only prevented from control of the Senate by the shenannigans in Missouri and Jefford's switch.

What "shenannigans" in Missouri?

The point is the Reps lost 5 Senate seats (not counting Jeffords's switch) in 2000 and no one made a big deal about that.

[Tuco-bad]

So Tuco, what is your opinion of Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Well - if Bush cannot turn around the economy, Bill Clinton will be "first man" in 2005.

[MAWG]

Tuco, Answer the question. What is your opinion of Bill and Hillary Clinton?

[MAWG]

" Bill Clinton will be first man in 2005."

In your dreams bed-wetter.

[Dog Gone]

I hadn't heard those rumors, but it wouldn't shock me.

One thing I'd love to verify was a statement in the Houston paper that the Texas Legislature could re-district the US Congressional seats this session. They were set by a panel of judges, as you recall, since no plan was passed by the Legislature.

If that's true, Texas could easily swing another six seats to the GOP.

[Tuco-bad]

Tuco, Answer the question. What is your opinion of Bill and Hillary Clinton?

You mean the guy who promised to lower taxes in 1992 and raised them in 1993?